Defining the difference
This article was derived from Steve’s MSc dissertation on competency frameworks in the government sector. It was originally published on the National School of Government Big Learning Event website: Big.Learning@nationalschool.gov.gsi.uk
Most large organisations, in both the public and private sectors, have ‘competence’ or ‘competency’ frameworks. However, many managers in these organisations remain unclear as to the purpose of these frameworks, and how they should be applying them. They struggle with the notion that the same sets of behaviours are deemed equally relevant to everyone throughout their organisation. They also struggle with how they are expected to utilise the frameworks in practice. Are they primarily developmental, a set of behaviours which employees should aspire to; or are they a set of basic requirements, against which employees should be appraised, and if necessary, disciplined?
In a 1995 article entitled ‘Demystifying Competence’ Michael Armstrong asked
…what does competence mean? It is all very confusing. Every definition is different. We hear about competences and competencies and are told that competence is quite different from competency and the two terms should never be confused (try telling that to a line manager).
(Armstrong, 1995: 49)
I believe that the distinction is important, but that over ten years since Armstrong’s attempt to ‘demystify competence’ confusion still reigns.
What, then, are the differences between the two? Whiddett and Hollyforde (2003: 5) offer the distinction that an ability based on work tasks should be referred to as a ‘competence’, while an ability based on behaviour should be referred to as a ‘competency’. So an example of a competence would be ‘Dealing with enquiries’, which could be demonstrated by performance indicators or outputs such as ‘Accurately completes enquiry forms’ or ‘Replies within agreed deadlines’. An example of a competency is ‘Interpersonal effectiveness’, which is specified by behavioural statements such as ‘Adapts style of interaction to take account of feelings of others’. The competency is broader, something which can be demonstrated in a wider range of situations than the competence, which relates to the requirements of a particular role or job.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) offer the following distinction:
’Competency’ is now generally defined as the behaviours that employees must have, or must acquire, to input into a situation in order to achieve high levels of performance, while ‘competence’ relates to a system of minimal standards or is demonstrated by performance and outputs.
(CIPD, 2004: 1)
The implication here is that ‘competency’ is something aspirational, behaviours to aim for which, if achieved, will result in a high level of performance. If we accept this distinction then the development of ‘competencies’ may be seen as a quest for excellence. ‘Competence’, on the other hand, is simply a statement of the lowest level of performance which may be considered acceptable.
Hedges (1996) also defines competency in terms of superior performance:
A competency is a skill or characteristic of a person which enables him or her to carry out specific actions at a superior level of performance.
(Hedges (quoted by Hyde), 1996: 4)
The reference to a ‘characteristic’ recalls the definition of competency offered by Boyatzis in ‘The Competent Manager’ (1982):
A job competency is an underlying characteristic of a person in that it may be a motive, a trait, a skill, an aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge which he or she uses.
(Boyatzis, 1992: 260)
Woodruffe (1992) suggests that much of the confusion as to what competency actually means may stem from definitions such as this. While the significance of Boyatzis’ work is not in question, psychological terms such as ‘traits’ and ‘motives’ are often not understood by practitioners. Woodruffe therefore offers a definition of his own:
A competency is the set of behaviour patterns that the incumbent needs to bring to a position in order to perform its tasks and functions with competence.
(Woodruffe, 1992: 17)
This definition makes a link between ‘competence’ – carrying out a specific job, and ‘competency’ – the transferable behaviour patterns which enable the individual to demonstrate competence in a range of different situations. Woodruffe describes these sets of behaviour patterns as ‘behavioural repertoires’ (Woodruffe 1992: 17), the range of capabilities, processes, actions and responses which enable some people to adapt more effectively to a range of work situations than others. Kurz and Bartram (2002) take up this notion of a ‘behavioural repertoire’ and offer the analogy of a musician, with a repertoire that covers a range of styles and types of music. They describe the musician’s performances as
… a consequence of his or her competency as a musician. This competency is not the same thing as the performances, but it is what enables the performances to occur…
The nature of the musician’s competency lies not just in the individual performances, but also in his or her ability to generalize and to transfer knowledge and skills from one job task to another.
(Kurz and Bartram, 2002: 230)
Kurz and Bartram concur with Woodruffe’s definition of competency as a set of behaviour patterns. This behavioural view of competency contrasts with the earlier, more psychological, traits-based approach of Boyatzis, and may be seen as supporting the charge that competency-based approaches perpetuate a narrow, behaviourist view of human development.
Kurz and Bartram also support Woodruffe and Whiddett and Hollyforde in their assertion that competencies should be specified in “action” terms. They illustrate this by stating that ‘Leadership’ is not a competency, but that ‘Providing Leadership’ is. The competency would then need to be supported by statements specifying the types of behaviours we would expect someone to exhibit while providing leadership, such as ‘listening to their subordinates’ or ‘demonstrating the ability to take difficult decisions’ (Kurz and Bartram 2002: 230).
What seems to emerge from this range of definitions is that a ‘competence’ is a statement of what someone needs to do to carry out a specific task or job. The ‘competence’ expressed will often be the minimum acceptable standard. ‘Competency’, is wider in scope, seeking to identify the range of behaviours (the ‘behavioural repertoire’) which will enable an individual to perform to a high standard in a range of situations. Competencies are therefore both transferable and aspirational. They should be expressed in ‘action’ terms, identifying the behaviours which require to be demonstrated.
As both Woodruffe and Whiddett and Hollyforde highlight, confusion is particularly likely to arise when ‘competences’ and ‘competencies’ are mixed up in the same framework. My own research into the use of competence and competency frameworks in the government sector suggests that this is quite common. So how did this state of confusion come about?
Miller (2001: 83-4) highlights differences of approach between the UK and the USA. In the UK a system has evolved which focuses on ‘competence’, in which the word ‘competent’ signifies that someone is performing their job in a way which reflects current standards of practice. In the USA, however, the focus is on ‘competencies’, which distinguish between ‘good’ performance and ‘exemplary’ performance.
When these two approaches are mixed up, and then used as part of the same HR systems, both become diluted and the distinct benefits of each approach are lost. For example, a candidate with an ‘exemplary’ behavioural repertoire may be passed over for a job in favour of a more limited candidate, because equal weight is being given to narrow job-specific competences. Unfairness may also arise in appraisal, where employees with a wide-ranging behavioural repertoire may fare no better than more limited employees who demonstrate ‘competence’ in their present job.
These examples demonstrate that what may seem like a purely academic debate can have serious implications for people’s working lives and careers. HR practitioners therefore have a responsibility to promote a clear distinction between ‘competence’ – minimum acceptable standards of performance - and ‘competency’ – the behavioural repertoire underpinning excellent performance. Organisations need to become clearer about which type of framework they have, and how they want their employees to apply it.
Steve Amos
May 2006
References
Armstrong, M (1995) ‘Demystifying Competence’. In Human Resources, November/December 1995, pp 49-50
Boyatzis, R (1992) ‘Building on competence: the effective use of managerial talent’. In G Salamon (ed.), Human Resource Strategies. London: Sage pp 260-272
Hogg, C (2001) Competency and competency frameworks. London, CIPD [online]. Available: http//www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/perfmangmt/competnces/comptfrmwk.htm
Hyde, S (1996) ‘Adopting a competent approach’. In Briefing Plus, May 1996, pp 4-5
Kurz, R and Bartram, D (2002) ‘Competency and Individual Performance: Modelling the World of Work’. In Robertson I, Callinan M and Bartram D (eds), Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp 227-255
Miller, L (1999) ‘Editorial’. In International Journal of Training and Development, 3 (2), pp 82-89
Whiddett, S and Hollyforde, S (2003) A Practical Guide to Competencies, London: CIPD
Woodruffe, C (1992) ‘What is meant by a competency?’. In Boam, R and Sparrow, P (eds), Designing and Achieving Competency. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, pp 16-29
Please visit our services page to find out about training opportunities with SATC.
Find out what's new with SATC.
We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Phone Steve on 01424 442861, alternatively, visit our contact page.
